(02-06-2016 12:49 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(02-06-2016 12:40 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-06-2016 10:54 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(02-06-2016 09:43 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Horseshit. He says "I think" then says that past historical records can't be used to predict future flood potential. Never says what man has "done" to cause this. He's fishing for grant money.

They talk extensively in there about the construction of the levees and the development in the floodplains. Those are two things right there that man has done.

Levees are nothing new and are not a valid reason to negate historical data from periods in which levees also existed. As for development of the plains, if that has changed the balance then somebody violated federal laws by not having net zero impact. If people choose to live in a flood plain, they do so at their own risk.

You can't talk levees without talking floodplains. A levee removes storage in the floodplain just as sure as development in the floodplain does. Development continues to take place in floodplains. Its happening around St. Louis for sure. Federal law doesn't prohibit development in floodplains or in floodways. Typically, those are regulated by the states. And, in Illinois, for example, there is no state law prohibiting development in floodplains. There is only prohibition on development in floodways.

The only way the feds are involved in floodplain development is through the flood insurance program.

Increasing urbanization, even with stormwater detention, causes impacts to flooding on river systems too.

Agreed. We are only now understanding to true effects of increased impervious land has on water flow as well.

Infrastructure? Really?


https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off...-water-sys

We want infrastructure, but we don't want to pay taxes and keep electing politicians who pledge not to raise taxes.

Course, we could remove tax breaks for oil companies and the military industrial complex and big agriculture and so on, use some of that money. Just gotta get the lobbyists, I mean, Congress, to say OK.

Quote:Would it be expensive? Hell yeah...but..I bet if suddenly water becomes a national issue? We would somehow find the money to pay for it.

This would likely cost trillions of dollars and that is why I'm comfortable knowing that the southwest will never get a drop of Great Lakes water.

(02-07-2016 11:03 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-06-2016 02:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-06-2016 01:31 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Damn near every year we face this same schit on the major rivers. Why can't some system be developed to take advantage of this and take as much of this unwanted water as possible to places that can use it. Maybe a series of large gate locked canals going to reservoirs and then pipelines...ect. When the floods come..open the gates and capture the excess water. There are current technologies being used that can pump water directly back into aquifers for storage. There are probably other ways to store water also.
With the enormous amount of money we have and will spend on flood clean up and damage, it would look like a good investment in the infrastructure. It could also ease the economic destruction of floods and droughts.

Yep.

Water is going to be a major problem in America at some point. We already are seeing it out West. I have a relative that lives in Alameda just across the Golden Gate Bridge. The stories she tells about how the use of water controls their lives is crazy.

When is the last time Americans got on board with a "National" infrastructure project? Something like this would give the same level decade long payback as the TVA or Hoover dam. I go on record saying I have zero problem paying for this type of infrastructure.

THIS would have been the type of project that could have greatly changed the trajectory of the economy over the past several years. I am a believer in Keynes's theories when it comes to smoothing out growth over the longer term. IMHO, we should all be. As has been stated on this forum in the past, Keynesian economics gets a bad wrap because only half of it is ever implemented. The gov't has never shrunk spending during economic booms in order to take help reduce overheating AND to pay for the stimulus injected during lean economic years. That's how it's supposed to work, but all we ever see is stimulus.

And this is also why I support the Fed reserve. If these assh0les had control of our money supply, we'd be fvcked so much worse now than anyone could ever imagine. Because we already saw this even with a Fed reserve chairman. See Nixon and Arthur Burns about what happens when elected officials can get their hands on the money supply by proxy, i.e. a weak Fed Reserve Chair.

Moonbats be Moonbats.....

(02-07-2016 11:03 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-06-2016 02:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-06-2016 01:31 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Damn near every year we face this same schit on the major rivers. Why can't some system be developed to take advantage of this and take as much of this unwanted water as possible to places that can use it. Maybe a series of large gate locked canals going to reservoirs and then pipelines...ect. When the floods come..open the gates and capture the excess water. There are current technologies being used that can pump water directly back into aquifers for storage. There are probably other ways to store water also.
With the enormous amount of money we have and will spend on flood clean up and damage, it would look like a good investment in the infrastructure. It could also ease the economic destruction of floods and droughts.

Yep.

Water is going to be a major problem in America at some point. We already are seeing it out West. I have a relative that lives in Alameda just across the Golden Gate Bridge. The stories she tells about how the use of water controls their lives is crazy.
When is the last time Americans got on board with a "National" infrastructure project? Something like this would give the same level decade long payback as the TVA or Hoover dam. I go on record saying I have zero problem paying for this type of infrastructure.

The California cities should all be doing major desalinization projects. All of their large metro areas are either on the coast (San Diego, LAX, SFO) or at very low altitude (Sacramento, parts of which are below sea level). Not having to pump water uphill means it would be relatively easy to get desalinized sea water to all of them. Doing that alone would have a major impact on water availability in California.

The folks in Cali have dumped 1.4 trillion gallons of fresh mountain water into the San Fran bay to protect the Delta Smelt. F**k 'em. Let them suffer.

There is a simple thought experiment you can do to determine whether it makes sense to live in an area or not. All you have to do is ask "what would the natural state of the area be like if man was not there". If it would look like a flooded swamp or a desert, then perhaps it would be reasonable to not live there...

Bush blew up the levees.